Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

REID v. COVERT

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


November 5, 1956

REID, SUPERINTENDENT, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA JAIL
v.
COVERT, 351 U.S. 487

AND KINSELLA, WARDEN
v.
KRUEGER, 351 U.S. 470.

On petition for rehearing.

[ 352 U.S. Page 901]

The petition for rehearing is granted. On reargument counsel are invited to include among the issues to be discussed by them the following matters:

"1. The specific practical necessities in the government and regulation of the land and naval forces which justify court-martial jurisdiction over civilian dependents overseas; the practical alternatives to the exercise of jurisdiction by court-martial.

 "2. The historical evidence, so far as such evidence is available and relevant, bearing on the scope of court-martial jurisdiction authorized under Art. I, § 8, cl. 14, and the Necessary and Proper Clause, and bearing on the relations of Article III and the Fifth and Sixth Amendments in interpreting those clauses. In particular, the question whether such historical evidence points to the conclusion that the Art. I, § 8, cl. 14, power was thought

[ 352 U.S. Page 902]

     to have a fixed and rigid content or rather that this power, as modified by the Necessary and Proper Clause, was considered a broad grant susceptible of expansion under changing circumstances.

"3. The relevance, for purposes of court-martial jurisdiction over civilians overseas in time of peace, of any distinctions between civilians employed by the armed forces and civilian dependents.

"4. The relevance, for purposes of court-martial jurisdiction over civilian dependents overseas in time of peace, of any distinctions between major crimes and petty offenses."

MR. JUSTICE REED, MR. JUSTICE BURTON, and MR. JUSTICE CLARK would deny the petition for rehearing. They believe that the problems presented in the above questions, with the exception of No. 4, the answer to which in their opinion is obvious, have been fully presented in the briefs and argument already had. MR. JUSTICE BRENNAN took no part in the consideration or decision of this application and order.

19561105

© 1998 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.